Morality Without God?

[B. W.]

Sorry Mr. Admin, no matter how much you try you cannot "justify" your twisting of my words, and trying to stuff them down my throat. It is entirely different to say someone is making something up specifically to justify their actions, then to say people are creating a god to explain the way they perceive reality. I am saying that the Hebrews, like many other people living at that time-period created gods to fit their perceptions, and explain how the world was created and who created it.

So are you an anti-Semite, Butterfly? Your words can indict you of this. And again you offend many… You clearly stated and define what their perceptions were – oppression on women, killing of innocents, oppression, slavery, etc. and etc.,, a tribal WAR GOD that reflected what belief system?

Even your new answer still verifies what I said: "After all - you did write - tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period."

Now re-read what you wrote:

…I am saying that the Hebrews, like many other people living at that time-period created gods to fit their perceptions, and explain how the world was created and who created it.

And add this to what I wrote:

“Do you see your own contradiction = 'tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds' = and then in same breath write: 'They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything.' How can they create but not purposely make up a god to justify their belief system of the time-period and be calling one Yahweh?

“So Thank you for again verifying that your premise is and was indeed this: "Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery.”

The real reason for your premise is that you were really hurt by a man or men – maybe your father – and interjecting that disdain I mentioned onto the bible and God and onto this forum. You seek a reason for the pain and wish to put God on trial and kill him for your pain. Such pain will negatively affect your marriage with the passage of time. I am actually trying to help you...

Sorry brother, you can draw any implication you want from my statement that "the Bible contains moral atrocities attributed to its god, Yahweh", but that does NOT mean I said Christians who believe the Bible are moral monsters. Once again, you are twisting my words to mean something other than I intended. …

How can you actually justly prove a god you claim does not exist committed moral atrocities just to attack the faith of Christians - when you absolutely refuse to hear the truth of the defense? That is called injustice, does in not? Therefore what it proves is that you are unjust and only offer an hang’em high verdict...

That is the insult… and you need to be called on it - not coddled...

My real concern for you (and others) – is this reality – Luke 4:17, 18, 19, 20… You are misreading me and others here.
You will not hear the truth, and you reject the truth due to the hurt you incurred in your past regarding men - especially Christian men…

Luke 4:17, 18, 19, 20 expresses the true reality of God you seek to mock, put on trial, bear false witness against, refuse to hear his defense, so you can kill him for all the pain you suffered...

Why are you so defensive?

Because you insulted Christian men due to whatever happened in your past. And no – not defensive at all – but aggressively seeking offering healing to a broken heart…yours

For your information, I have not ignored what others who disagree with me have said, rather I have countered their arguments. Isn't that what debates, and discussions are all about?

No you have not countered any arguments because you cannot listen to reason due to the hurt inside that clouds your perception.
-
-
-

[neo-x]

I know my Bible very well, and have studied it extensively.

Butterfly, you do not know the Bible very well in my opinion. the same way, as the reading of the the selfish gene does not make you an expert in evolutionary zoology or reading the Grand design makes you an expert in cosmology and astronomy; also then, reading the Bible, even extensively does not make you an expert in Biblical scholarship. Of course by expert I do not mean someone who is aggressively christian but someone who is qualified to handle these texts in their entirety, with learnt hermenutics and many other philosophical studies which are bound to directly affect the understanding of these texts.

You can argue that the simple pulpit preacher does not go into this much trouble to read his bible so why should I take an exception to you? The thing is anyone can pick up the English bible, reading it 8 times cover to cover and think they know it, is fine by me but as soon as they set foot on critical analysis, they face a challenge of scholarship which has evolved over 2000 years has plenty to offer and is quite solid in its foundations. You are good for the former reasoning because that is hardly challenging, meaning your view of the Bible. In that respect your opinion is no more greater or worse than the average christian believer or preacher who makes up God as he sees fit in his own mind but is that a scholarly take on the text itself? No, because it is not following any discipline seriously.

If you want to present your opinion, that's fine, but when you do that with an apparent air of scholarship that is when I have to object about your qualification to accurately do so. Give me a reason to accept your take and study on the issues you cite, over my own take on these issues which are different in conclusion to yours. You can of course say that your wish here is not to convince anyone and I can respect that but you would realize that is not what I am asking, I am asking what makes your study any different than anyone else who think otherwise? What special discipline of scholarly analysis have you employed which is more True than I have studied?

You want to be challenged? wish granted. Here we are, lets see what you have to offer?

[PaulSacramento]

The Bible says it happened. If this is the point you are disputing, you need to explicitly explain why by addressing what the Bible actually states.

Where does the bible say that all the men women and children were wiped out?

Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

As for the "question of morality" of the creator wiping out His creation, WHO on Earth is qualified to answer much less judge THAT ??

We are talking about a BOOK written by humans that claims God did things. Any reader of the book is qualified to judge if those claims represent moral acts. For example, suppose the Quran said that Allah gave Muhammad an 9 year old girl to be wife. Are you qualified to judge if that action attributed to Allah is moral?

Well, it seems that what happened in reality was that they did NOT do that, did they?
So, why on earth with the writers of the OT books NOT have caught that "minor detail"?
Probably the same reason that we to day here a story/report that a "whole village was wiped out" but we do NOT assume that means everyuthing in that village was literally and concretely wiped out.

As for judging the morality of a creator, sorry you can't do that, you have no POR to be able to do that.
You can judge the ACT, yes of course, bout not the being doing that since you have no clue as to intention or anything for that matter.
I would think that a being wiping out millions of people in 1930 Germany would be viewed as a horrific immoral act, YET, with that beings knowledge of what those people would do from 1938 to 1945, suddenly the act takes on another view BUT without the foreknowledge all we have is an "immoral act".

[PaulSacramento]

That is correct, just because I don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong...but, really that is not the issue here. The only way we humans have of discerning whether something is true, or valid is to use our reasoning and logic.

Why don't Christians believe that the Koran is true? Because they use their reasoning and logic to reject its claims. People do this all the time, so why shouldn't the same standards apply to discerning whether or not claims the Bible makes are valid or true?

-

You mention the Koran. I don't believe the Koran to be true because, having read it and studied it with a Muslim friend that is a teacher of the Koran, I found it to NOT be in line with what I see in the universe.
Of course that is 100% subjective and it most certainly works for MANY people.
When I read the bible and THOUGHT I understood what I was reading, I did not like it or agree or anything.
When I read the bible under the imporession that I KNEW what it was, I didn't like it or agree with it.
BUT never did I NOT see "reality" in it, in fact I did, I see perhaps TOO much and that is what bothered me.

That my friend is the point. When one reads the Bible they do see "reality" in it...that is what is so bothersome. We try to measure the biblical standards against our own and they fall far short.

So, I opened myself to the writings of those that knew far more about the0 bible than I did.
I learned what it was, what it wasn't, how it was made, why and to whom it was written.
I learned about genres and things like "context", "Historicity" and "accommodation" and things began to make sense BUT I still didn't like what I read.
So I asked the HS to guide me and to help me see, NOT because I wanted to believe in it (the bible still does NOT hold the place as Word of God for me)but because I wanted to understand it for what it was/is.
Do I still have issues with some parts? Yes of course but NOT because they happened, but because they had to happen.
When I stopped thinking that the bible should be this, that or the other thing, that it should contain THIS and nothing of THAT, that is when I began to see the truth in the bible and as the saying goes, the truth is ugly sometimes.

When I was a Christian I too ask the tough questions of the HS, and the answers I got is what ultimately lead me out of Christianity. It seems you were lead one way and I was lead another. When I opened my eyes and saw the ugly truth that the Bible contained I realize I could no longer believe in its God.
-

I think you may have missed the point...
ANY book measured against what we THINK it should be/show, that was not made to be THAT, will NEVER "live up to our expectations".

It is when I started to study ABOUT the bible that I began to understand WHAT the bible is.
You first have to know WHAT you are studying before you can study it.

[PaulSacramento]

Just a little note guys ( and lady ), We ALL are just expressing our views and opinions base don our OWN understanding and interpretations.
Yes, I can be wrong, so can Spock or Butterfly or Rick or anyone else here since NONE of Us are infallible of course.
We are just people trying to understand each others views and yes, it is perfectly fine for even believers to have different views about things, even contradictory views.

[RickD]

Ok, Butterfly. I'll try to give my perspective as best as I can.

1. Genocide is genocide no matter what the reason for it, or who perpetrated it. A negative connotation is given to the word because it is a negative action. God committed genocide even if you say he was justified, so then that means the standard for God is different. When God commits genocide it's okay because he has a valid reason, when man commits genocide it's an immoral act...PERIOD.

First, I think calling it genocide, is a stretch. If one is unaware of the context and how God dealt with the Canaanites, then I can see how one may see genocide. But once we look at the context, genocide seems to be a stretch. For comparison, the Nazis committed genocide against the Jews, because they were Jews. The Canaanites, by contrast, were destroyed at the direction of God and primarily because of their sin.

If man is unable to have a standard by which he judges morality from immorality, how is he expected to be able to judge good from bad? How do we know God is good? By what standard do we judge him?

I know God is good, because as a believer, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit(God Himself) inside me. He convicts me and chastises me when I sin, just like a loving parent should. My sinful nature is constantly fighting with my spiritual nature. You claim that you were a Christian for almost 28 years. If you were, I wouldn't have to explain that to you. The God you describe, isn't the God I personally know.

2. In using the Hebrew soldiers as instruments of his vengeance, God caused men to commit horrendously immoral acts. It's one thing for God to commit genocide and quite another to command men to do it. What is worse: the Canaanites sacrificing their own children, or the Hebrews slaughtering the Canaanite children?

I see God as justified in what He commanded. I believe what the bible says when it talks about how utterly sinful the Canaanites were. From the article:

In the conquest of Canaan, three goals were being accomplished.

First, the movement of the Israelites into Canaan was the fruition of God’s promise to Abram that He would give that land to his children (Gen. 12:7). When Joshua led the people across the Jordan River into Canaan, he was fulfilling this promise. Since the land wasn’t empty, this could only be accomplished by driving the Canaanites out.

The second goal of the conquest was the judgment of the Canaanites. Driving them out wasn’t simply a way of making room for Israel. The Canaanites were an evil, depraved people who had to be judged to fulfill the demands of justice. What about these people prompted such a harsh judgment?

For one thing, the Canaanites worshipped other gods. In our pluralistic age, it’s easy to forget what an offense that is to the true God.

In the worship of their gods, the Canaanites committed other evils. They engaged in temple prostitution which was thought to be a re-enactment of the sexual unions of the gods and goddesses.

An even more detestable practice was that of child sacrifice. Under the sanctuary in the ancient city of Gezer, urns containing the burnt bones of children have been found. They are dated to somewhere between 2000 and 1500 BC, between the time of Abraham and the Exodus.{7}

The third goal of the conquest was the protection of Israel. God was concerned that, if the Canaanites remained in the land, they would draw the Israelites into their evil practices.

How could the Canaanites have that much influence over the Israelites? For one thing, the Israelites would intermarry with them, and their spouses would bring their gods into the marriage with all that entailed.{8} In addition, the Israelites would be tempted to imitate Canaanite religious rituals because of their close connection to agricultural rhythms. The fertility of the land was believed to be directly connected to the sexual relations of the gods and goddesses. The people believed that re-enacting these unions themselves played a part in the fertility of the land.{9}

At first, the Israelites tried to compromise and worship God the way the Canaanites worshiped their gods. God had warned them against that (Deut. 12:4, 30, 31). Then they would simply abandon worship of the true God. As a result, they eventually received the same judgment the Canaanites experienced (Deut. 4:26; 7:4).

I have no problem with that explanation.

3. In Rick Wade's final comments, he quotes from Duet. 24:16 where it says "the children shall not be put to death because of the sins of the fathers", but then goes on to justify God's killing of children by saying the Canaanites were a special circumstance because their evilness had continued for so long and was so bad. Did killing all the Canaanite babies put an end to evil? Of coarse not!

I ask you this then: Is "to put an end to evil" the reason why God punishes people? When we as a country punish murderers, is it to put an end to murder? Or is it because the crime deserves justice?

All through history we have examples of mans atrocious behavior, take for instance the horrendous torture that Christian men inflicted upon women who were accused of being witches.

This is irrelevant. What proof do you have that anyone who killed witches was Christian. Even if they were Christian, they weren't following Christ by killing witches.
I haven't studied the Salem witch trials, but could it possibly have happened because those who killed the witches, used this verse to justify their sin: Exodus 22:18 KJV 18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

If that verse was used to justify the killing of witches, it was because the verse wasn't taken in its proper context. That applies ONLY inside the theocracy of OT Israel.

Nothing get worse than that, and it happened thousands of years after the Canaanite affair, so killing all the Canaanites did nothing as far as stopping mans wicked behavior.

Again, was God's punishment meant to eliminate evil? This is biblical doctrine that someone who was a Christian for 28 years, and claims to know the bible like you claim, should have no problem understanding. When will evil be eliminated? What is God's plan for the elimination of evil? Is His plan complete?

On another note, Rose. Looking at your blogGodandButterfly.net, I can't help but see that almost your entire blog is written from the perspective of someone whose opinions are based on hurt you have experienced, first by your Father, who wasn't the proper image of a Father. And second, possibly by a man or men in your life, who justified their horrible actions towards you, by claiming they had the biblical authority as men, to do whatever they want to women. Again, the God you portray, isn't the God I know. Blaming God for the horrors committed by men who wrongly claimed God justified their actions, is not fair to God. If someone steals my hat, coat, glasses, and truck, and goes around running over people in my truck, am I to blame for his crimes?

[PaulSacramento]

Seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation for the Big Guy...
IF he takes things into His own hands ( Sodom and Gomorrah) He is a vengeful, spiteful homicidal God.
If He commands His chosen people to eliminate a horrific group, He is genocidal and forcing people to commit horrific acts ( Canaanites, etc)
If He does nothing and allows humans to fix things themselves with no motivation or interference from Him ( WW2 for example), He is negligent and doesn't "exist" anymore.

[Spock]

Seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation for the Big Guy...
IF he takes things into His own hands ( Sodom and Gomorrah) He is a vengeful, spiteful homicidal God.
If He commands His chosen people to eliminate a horrific group, He is genocidal and forcing people to commit horrific acts ( Canaanites, etc)
If He does nothing and allows humans to fix things themselves with no motivation or interference from Him ( WW2 for example), He is negligent and doesn't "exist" anymore.

I don't see it that way at all. There are many options you did not mention. For example, God could choose to act in a way that is loving, rational, intelligent, and designed to lead people in the way that is good. But that's not what he does. He seems enamored by violence as the primary solution to problems. Why did he choose violence as the solution? It saturates the Bible from beginning to end, from the Flood to the invasion of Canaan, to the end when he celebrates his great "Supper of the Lamb" and the vultures "eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." And he ends the whole story by violently throwing all his enemies into the Lake of Fire where "the smoke of their torment goes up forever." This is my primary problem with the Biblical portrayal of God. It's not just a problem here or there - it is a systematic problem. For example, consider 2 Samuel 21:

2 Samuel 21:1Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

What rational leader would inflict his entire nation with a three year famine, causing untold pain and hardship, without even telling them the reason? And worse, what rational leader would inflict a three year famine for the crimes of a previous king? And worse yet, what rational leader would then be satisfied and lift the famine only after they murdered seven sons of that previous king and "hung them up before the Lord"? Again, we see gross and unjust violence as the solution.

This is why all the attempts to explain away the individual problems here or there like genocide, sexism, slavery, etc. will never work. An intelligent reading of the Bible cannot help but see that there is a "Big Picture" that portrays God as fundamentally irrational and violent. The only possible defense is to propose false limitations on God as if he had no other choice. This is what strikes me as so absurd. The attempts to justify God depend critically upon forgetting that he is supposed to be "God" - that is, an infinitely intelligent, wise, and loving creator who can do anything he wants. Why did he choose to create a world filled with violence, and then solve those problems with ever more violence?

[Butterfly]

Sorry Mr. Admin, no matter how much you try you cannot "justify" your twisting of my words, and trying to stuff them down my throat. It is entirely different to say someone is making something up specifically to justify their actions, then to say people are creating a god to explain the way they perceive reality. I am saying that the Hebrews, like many other people living at that time-period created gods to fit their perceptions, and explain how the world was created and who created it.

So are you an anti-Semite, Butterfly? Your words can indict you of this. And again you offend many… You clearly stated and define what their perceptions were – oppression on women, killing of innocents, oppression, slavery, etc. and etc.,, a tribal WAR GOD that reflected what belief system?

Even your new answer still verifies what I said: "After all - you did write - tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period."

Now re-read what you wrote:

…I am saying that the Hebrews, like many other people living at that time-period created gods to fit their perceptions, and explain how the world was created and who created it.

And add this to what I wrote:

“Do you see your own contradiction = 'tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds' = and then in same breath write: 'They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything.' How can they create but not purposely make up a god to justify their belief system of the time-period and be calling one Yahweh?

“So Thank you for again verifying that your premise is and was indeed this: "Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery.”

The real reason for your premise is that you were really hurt by a man or men – maybe your father – and interjecting that disdain I mentioned onto the bible and God and onto this forum. You seek a reason for the pain and wish to put God on trial and kill him for your pain. Such pain will negatively affect your marriage with the passage of time. I am actually trying to help you...

What you are doing is an egregious attempt to force me into saying something you know I didn't mean...and you are a forum moderator? You know that I meant the Hebrews created a god to fit their perceptions of why things happened in the world around them, and to explain what they didn't understand. I DID NOT MEAN OR SAY that the Hebrews specifically created a god to justify their oppression of women, killing of innocents, and justify slavery...they were already doing all those things in their everyday life. The god they created just reflected those beliefs.

Sorry brother, you can draw any implication you want from my statement that "the Bible contains moral atrocities attributed to its god, Yahweh", but that does NOT mean I said Christians who believe the Bible are moral monsters. Once again, you are twisting my words to mean something other than I intended. …

How can you actually justly prove a god you claim does not exist committed moral atrocities just to attack the faith of Christians - when you absolutely refuse to hear the truth of the defense? That is called injustice, does in not? Therefore what it proves is that you are unjust and only offer an hang’em high verdict...

That is the insult… and you need to be called on it - not coddled...

My real concern for you (and others) – is this reality – Luke 4:17, 18, 19, 20… You are misreading me and others here.
You will not hear the truth, and you reject the truth due to the hurt you incurred in your past regarding men - especially Christian men…

Luke 4:17, 18, 19, 20 expresses the true reality of God you seek to mock, put on trial, bear false witness against, refuse to hear his defense, so you can kill him for all the pain you suffered...

Why are you so defensive?

Because you insulted Christian men due to whatever happened in your past. And no – not defensive at all – but aggressively seeking offering healing to a broken heart…yours

For your information, I have not ignored what others who disagree with me have said, rather I have countered their arguments. Isn't that what debates, and discussions are all about?

No you have not countered any arguments because you cannot listen to reason due to the hurt inside that clouds your perception.
-
-
-

I have insulted no Christian men here, but rather you and others here have insulted me by twisting my words! My discourse has been directed at the ancient Hebrews of biblical times concerning what is written in the Bible. I didn't write those words in the Bible, the ancient Hebrews did. So why are you getting so defense about something other people in another time wrote? And just because your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny doesn't mean I've falsely accused anyone.

-

[Spock]

No you have not countered any arguments because you cannot listen to reason due to the hurt inside that clouds your perception.

B.W. - your ad hominem attack is fundamentally fallacious and irrational. And besides that, it is based a false assumption of knowledge that you simply do not have, namely, knowledge of Butterfly's motivations and psychology. And worse yet, it is false because Butterfly consistently gives reasons for her answers supported by logic and facts.

You would do well to apologize for your egregious error and choose the path of reason.

[Spock]

I know my Bible very well, and have studied it extensively.

Butterfly, you do not know the Bible very well in my opinion. the same way, as the reading of the the selfish gene does not make you an expert in evolutionary zoology or reading the Grand design makes you an expert in cosmology and astronomy; also then, reading the Bible, even extensively does not make you an expert in Biblical scholarship. Of course by expert I do not mean someone who is aggressively christian but someone who is qualified to handle these texts in their entirety, with learnt hermenutics and many other philosophical studies which are bound to directly affect the understanding of these texts.

You can argue that the simple pulpit preacher does not go into this much trouble to read his bible so why should I take an exception to you? The thing is anyone can pick up the English bible, reading it 8 times cover to cover and think they know it, is fine by me but as soon as they set foot on critical analysis, they face a challenge of scholarship which has evolved over 2000 years has plenty to offer and is quite solid in its foundations. You are good for the former reasoning because that is hardly challenging, meaning your view of the Bible. In that respect your opinion is no more greater or worse than the average christian believer or preacher who makes up God as he sees fit in his own mind but is that a scholarly take on the text itself? No, because it is not following any discipline seriously.

Hey there neo-x,

Your assertions imply the Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an argument does not depend upon any qualities of the person who states it.

But of course, if someone is ignorant of hermeneutics and the original languages, they will often assert false arguments. But then you need only show the error in the argument. Attacking someone's qualifications is simply a logical fallacy of the class ad hominem.

Now to get you up to speed on the level of discourse I would like to see here: I have been studying the Bible for twenty years and was a convinced and rather fundamentlistic Christian for about 15 of those years. I can read both Greek and Hebrew and am very well grounded in all aspects of hermeneutics. I am familiar with all the major arguments of Christian apologists and would be rather surprised to find one that I have not already seen. This comes from decades of serious study. Of course, that doesn't give an ounce of support to any argument I present, since all arguments must stand on their own merit.

What are your qualifications?

If you want to present your opinion, that's fine, but when you do that with an apparent air of scholarship that is when I have to object about your qualification to accurately do so. Give me a reason to accept your take and study on the issues you cite, over my own take on these issues which are different in conclusion to yours. You can of course say that your wish here is not to convince anyone and I can respect that but you would realize that is not what I am asking, I am asking what makes your study any different than anyone else who think otherwise? What special discipline of scholarly analysis have you employed which is more True than I have studied?

This again is merely the Genetic Fallacy. We must evaluate the truth or falsehood of an argument solely on the argument itself.

You want to be challenged? wish granted. Here we are, lets see what you have to offer?

Excellent! Is that for real? I ask because I get the impression that I would be banned if I presented my arguments as aggressively as the Christians on this forum.

[jlay]

Actually, christians get banned as well. We had someone with a philosophy degree, who read Greek and Hebrew, but he was recently banned. Oh well.

So Spock. What is your purpose here?

[Butterfly]

Ok, Butterfly. I'll try to give my perspective as best as I can.

1. Genocide is genocide no matter what the reason for it, or who perpetrated it. A negative connotation is given to the word because it is a negative action. God committed genocide even if you say he was justified, so then that means the standard for God is different. When God commits genocide it's okay because he has a valid reason, when man commits genocide it's an immoral act...PERIOD.

First, I think calling it genocide, is a stretch. If one is unaware of the context and how God dealt with the Canaanites, then I can see how one may see genocide. But once we look at the context, genocide seems to be a stretch. For comparison, the Nazis committed genocide against the Jews, because they were Jews. The Canaanites, by contrast, were destroyed at the direction of God and primarily because of their sin.

Hi Rick,
I appreciate your attempt to explain why it wasn't genocide, even though it was. Now, it's perfectly valid to try and reason why God was justified in committing genocide, but if you say he didn't then words lose their meaning.

2. In using the Hebrew soldiers as instruments of his vengeance, God caused men to commit horrendously immoral acts. It's one thing for God to commit genocide and quite another to command men to do it. What is worse: the Canaanites sacrificing their own children, or the Hebrews slaughtering the Canaanite children?

I see God as justified in what He commanded. I believe what the bible says when it talks about how utterly sinful the Canaanites were. From the article:

I have no problem with that explanation.

What you quoted from the article does not address my point. How can you justify God using the Hebrew soldiers to commit horrendously immoral acts like killing women and children?

3. In Rick Wade's final comments, he quotes from Duet. 24:16 where it says "the children shall not be put to death because of the sins of the fathers", but then goes on to justify God's killing of children by saying the Canaanites were a special circumstance because their evilness had continued for so long and was so bad. Did killing all the Canaanite babies put an end to evil? Of coarse not!

I ask you this then: Is "to put an end to evil" the reason why God punishes people? When we as a country punish murderers, is it to put an end to murder? Or is it because the crime deserves justice?

Again, was God's punishment meant to eliminate evil? This is biblical doctrine that someone who was a Christian for 28 years, and claims to know the bible like you claim, should have no problem understanding. When will evil be eliminated? What is God's plan for the elimination of evil? Is His plan complete?

I was addressing the article by Rick Wade where he said "The situation with Canaan was different. Generation after generation of Canaanites continued in the same evil practices. What was to stop it? God knew it would take the destruction of the nations. " As we know evil practices of men did not stop, but have continued on up until present day...

On another note, Rose. Looking at your blogGodandButterfly.net, I can't help but see that almost your entire blog is written from the perspective of someone whose opinions are based on hurt you have experienced, first by your Father, who wasn't the proper image of a Father. And second, possibly by a man or men in your life, who justified their horrible actions towards you, by claiming they had the biblical authority as men, to do whatever they want to women. Again, the God you portray, isn't the God I know. Blaming God for the horrors committed by men who wrongly claimed God justified their actions, is not fair to God. If someone steals my hat, coat, glasses, and truck, and goes around running over people in my truck, am I to blame for his crimes?

I have said nothing in my articles about my father, or other men in my life (except my wonderful husband ), so I think it best not to speculate on those things.
-

[PaulSacramento]

I don't see it that way at all. There are many options you did not mention. For example, God could choose to act in a way that is loving, rational, intelligent, and designed to lead people in the way that is good. But that's not what he does. He seems enamored by violence as the primary solution to problems. Why did he choose violence as the solution? It saturates the Bible from beginning to end, from the Flood to the invasion of Canaan, to the end when he celebrates his great "Supper of the Lord" and the vultures "eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." And he ends the whole story by violently throwing all his enemies into the Lake of Fire where "the smoke of their torment goes up forever." This is my primary problem with the Biblical portrayal of God. It's not just a problem here or there - it is a systematic problem. For example, consider 2 Samuel 21:

2 Samuel 21:1Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

What rational leader would inflict his entire nation with a three year famine, causing untold pain and hardship, without even telling them the reason? And worse, what rational leader would inflict a three year famine for the crimes of a previous king? And worse yet, what rational leader would then be satisfied and lift the famine only after they murdered seven sons of that previous king and "hung them up before the Lord"? Again, we see gross and unjust violence as the solution.

This is why all the attempts to explain away the individual problems here or there like genocide, sexism, slavery, etc. will never work. An intelligent reading of the Bible cannot help but see that there is a "Big Picture" that portrays God as fundamentally irrational and violent. The only possible defense is to propose false limitations on God as if he had no other choice. This is what strikes me as so absurd. The attempt to justify God depend critically upon forgetting that he is supposed to be "God" - that is, an infinitely intelligent, wise, and loving creator who can do anything he wants. Why did he choose to create a world filled with violence, and then solve those problems with ever more violence?

See, while I do agree with most of your post, that the biblical God does indeed SEEM to be that way ( or at least written that way), when you say this:

An intelligent reading of the Bible cannot help but see that there is a "Big Picture" that portrays God as fundamentally irrational and violent.

What you are doing, which I am sure you are aware, is stating that an opinion COUNTER to YOU opinion on this matter is, unintelligent.
In short, you are calling those that don't agree with your opinion ( which is all you have been stating by the way, like us), unintelligent.
In short, stupid.

One could argue that the fact that you see NO OTHER recourse but to view God that way, to be rather myopic or perhaps even *gasp* unintelligent !

Fact is that you have chosen to interpret these verses and stories a certain way and I, for one, respect that since I h ave been there also.
There is NO NEED to say that a varying view is unintelligent or even to imply as such.
You are stating an opinion base don your views and interpretations and reasons there from.
So are we.

I can't speak for others, but I think of myself as a fairly intelligent person, I have a Bach in Business and Mech. Engineering and working on my Bach, in Theology.
I run a business and have YET to do something so unintelligent as to make those that know me, call into question my intelligence.
In short, I think stating that you believe that any interpretation other than yours is "unintelligent" and "not based on reason" as you seem to imply is, well, insulting and uncalled for.

[RickD]

B. W. wrote:No you have not countered any arguments because you cannot listen to reason due to the hurt inside that clouds your perception.

Spock replied:
B.W. - your ad hominem attack is fundamentally fallacious and irrational. And besides that, it is based a false assumption of knowledge that you simply do not have, namely, knowledge of Butterfly's motivations and psychology. And worse yet, it is false because Butterfly consistently gives reasons for her answers supported by logic and facts.

Butterfly wrote:
I have said nothing in my articles about my father, or other men in my life (except my wonderful husband ), so I think it best not to speculate on those things.

Rose, then what is this from your blog http://godandbutterfly.net/2010/05/

These are strong words, but nothing compared to the havoc wreaked in the lives of those women who have and are living under the oppression of power hungry, self-serving men who chose to inflict suffering on their fellow human beings instead of support. I speak from having had first hand experience with these self-serving men (starting with my father), who used their positions of authority to take advantage of women merely because they could. I have chosen this opportunity to purge my soul from this weight….allowing my butterfly the freedom to soar higher, and see farther then ever before, speaking out against those who stand in the way of the potential of each human life.

Looks like B. W. and I are pretty accurate when we say that your entire blog and arguments are based on a man(your Father), and/or men in your life that have, let's just say, been less than ideal, loving men.

So, you can continue blaming God for those who hurt you while claiming His name. OR, you can begin to move past this, and see God for who He really is. Your real loving Father. The One who loves you enough to send His son to die a agonizing death for YOU, Rose.